Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

["Jiwoong Lee" <porce at ktf.com>]

James and Ken, 

Quite interesting remarks you have made. I agree to Ken's syllogistics and I love James' consideration on corporeal world practice.

Let's begin at the beginning. What is the requirement level for exceptions of "MUST NOTs" ?

First, in RFC terms, MAY has the equal value to MAY NOT. In fact, there is no definition on "MAY NOT" in RFC 2119. 

Exceptions to MUST NOTs means there are cases which are not prohibited. The semantics gives me the implication that the appripriate requirement level is placed between "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY".

Jiwoong



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James P. Salsman" <bovik at best.com>
To: <calvert at netlab.uky.edu>
Cc: <porce at ktf.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"


> Ken,
> 
> You have a sharp eye, but the excluded middle of syllogistic logic 
> has different semantics than the pragmatic logic of restrictions 
> (such as statutory law and RFC requirements.)
> 
> For example, you are not allowed to use a cellphone on a plane, but 
> will you be prosecuted if you do use one to thwart a hijacking?  No.
> 
> This is a favorite topic of mine.  I hope you do not think I was 
> trolling, but I was checking to see if any Aristotelians such as 
> yourself were paying attention.
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> > Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Ken Calvert <calvert at netlab.uky.edu>
> > To: "James P. Salsman" <bovik at best.com>
> > Subject: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
> > 
> > > (NOT P) does not imply (NOT (C AND P)).
> > 
> > Of course it does.
> > 
> > For any boolean structures P and C,
> > 
> >   NOT P
> > => 
> >  (NOT C) OR (NOT P)
> > =
> >  NOT (C AND P)
> > 
> > See any text on propositional calculus.
> > 
> > KC
>